User talk:KentHaaChe

May 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm S0091. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Mark Wiens, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! S0091 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zain Ul Abadin (May 22)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zain Ul Abadin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KentHaaChe! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zain Ul Abadin (May 23)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zain Ul Abadin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

Please do not leave threatening summaries such as this [1]. I've reverted your edit as the article clearly states the list is for TV broadcasts only and NOT social media. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was broadcasted in Twitter so it makes the interview most watched interview in the world. See meaning of most watched interview then comment. KentHaaChe (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article clearly states "This is specifically on broadcast television and not on other television sources such as YouTube, Twitter or other online sources." Can I ask why you are ignoring this? Knitsey (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please try not to be rude. Knitsey (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of most watched television interviews shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Knitsey (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to List of most watched television interviews—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:KentHaaChe reported by User:Deauthorized (Result: ). Thank you. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 07:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix has attacked me. KentHaaChe (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KentHaaChe Hi, take this situation as a precedent for the future. The policy regarding vandalism is quite strict here on Wikipedia and rightly so. Despite mine and Knitsey's various warnings, you did not stop. Hope you make better decisions. ChaitanyaJo (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KentHaaChe. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 17:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]